Poll: Do you want Jon to survive the post-Bendis era?

[kingaliencracker]

Simple poll.

Do you want Jon to survive the post-Bendis era or whatever relaunch/reboot that takes place next year? And when I say survive, I mean either you want the character to continue (either as a teenager or pre-teen) or you want him erased/killed/limbo'd...whatever.

[mrjames21]

Not only do I want him to survive, I want DC to take this new reboot they are doing starting in January to make Jon and Conner official sons of Lois and Clark, both potential inheritors of the Superman name, but have 1 follow Clark's philosophy, the other to have a different opinion on how he wants to use his powers or maybe philosophically disagree on the situations in which his power should be used. Example - should it be used on "Superman Level threats only", or to fight "street crime". Who's methods and ideology would be the bigger influence? How about giving Supes a daughter too. The stories of teaching Jon how to use his powers were awesome, but due to changes in the "timeline" not fully explored. How about having a story where Lois is doing her thing gets into her usual scrapes that Clark let's her handle on her own, but her kids don't! The bust in and make a mess of all of her work! What if one of the boys actually looked up to their grandfather Sam Lane and wanted to be a soldier that he could mold?? The possibilities are endless as long as you have a clear vision and can articulate it to the public. Of course, you'll have your haters who won't like anything that wasn't associated with Superman from the day he was first created, but the growth of the character and his universe is long overdue. He deserves to have his numerous Robins/Spoilers/Bat Girls and even Red Hood (Lor-Zod)!!

[Sacred Knight]

Its pretty close to a definite he will. But if I had my way he'd be erased to oblivion never to return. If anything my hatred of the character has grown instead of settling into something I can at least tolerate, which is what I hoped would happen over time because I knew he wasn't just going to be a short term thing. I don't think he's a concept that's going to be around forever, but I don't see it going anywhere now. I'm quite certain they'll just de-age him, so my best realistic hope is just that it doesn't include a renewed Rebirth tone. Going back to Superdad era is the last thing Superman needs, and I think Bendis was right to minimize it even if I didn't like the way he ultimately went about doing it.

[Robanker]

I do, but I think he should be de-aged following a return from the Legion. That lets the Legion book exist in a bubble before he goes back and returns to his proper age as well as having the most successful iteration of Jon to exist; having one's cake and eating it too.

However, I mean this sincerely, if he's ever going to have legs as a character he needs more Lois in him. Right now he's just his dad on a sugar rush and that should stop.

[John Venus]

There should be a hell yes option.

[the illustrious mr. kenway]

Sure as I never hated the kid. I just hated how they brought him in the first time but I got over it. I don't hate Bendis aging him up, I just never felt Bendis did anything with him that was worth it.

So here's hoping they do more with him that is new and exciting.

[SiegePerilous02]

I definitely don't. My feelings pretty much match Sacred's on this matter.

However, if we get a direction for the books that I overall like and Jon has a minimal role in the main books, I can deal with him.

[objectivewatcher2013]

Not only do I want him to survive, I want DC to take this new reboot they are doing starting in January to make Jon and Conner official sons of Lois and Clark, both potential inheritors of the Superman name, but have 1 follow Clark's philosophy, the other to have a different opinion on how he wants to use his powers or maybe philosophically disagree on the situations in which his power should be used. Example - should it be used on "Superman Level threats only", or to fight "street crime". Who's methods and ideology would be the bigger influence? How about giving Supes a daughter too. The stories of teaching Jon how to use his powers were awesome, but due to changes in the "timeline" not fully explored. How about having a story where Lois is doing her thing gets into her usual scrapes that Clark let's her handle on her own, but her kids don't! The bust in and make a mess of all of her work! What if one of the boys actually looked up to their grandfather Sam Lane and wanted to be a soldier that he could mold?? The possibilities are endless as long as you have a clear vision and can articulate it to the public. Of course, you'll have your haters who won't like anything that wasn't associated with Superman from the day he was first created, but the growth of the character and his universe is long overdue. He deserves to have his numerous Robins/Spoilers/Bat Girls and even Red Hood (Lor-Zod)!!

LOL, shades of the Arrowverse show.

[manwhohaseverything]

That's not true at all. Clark never ran around doing "whatever he wanted," he was pursuing *his* view of justice from the start. Mayhem sometimes followed in his wake, but only because he was upsetting and destroying flawed systems, not because he was some agent of chaos chasing whatever shiny object caught his attention.

He *was* an outlaw, yes, and in the majority of versions is still technically outside the law even today. But that has no bearing on his status as a moral authority; Robin Hood is a moral authority, as was Zorro, and all those other two-fisted dispensers of justice that had to do their jobs beyond the reach of established systems. Moral authority has nothing to do with *legal* authority. And from day one, Clark's whole deal was "treat people right, Metropolis, or expect a visit from me." Of course he's been presented as a moral authority from the start, he just wasn't always presented as a *self-righteous and pompous* moral authority.

Yeah! Pursuing justice in tyranny requires anarchy. That's what clark provided, the antidote. Dude! Doing the right thing requires you to actually want to do the right thing. Moreover, i was being relativistic. For him, he might be pursuing justice. That's his perspective. For the world, he might just be an agent of chaos that does whatever he wants. That's how the outlaw status works.Jason is viewed as bad guy by the superheroes. But, the dude helps and protects those that are inneed of it which these heroes fail to do like for instance bizarro. He takes out guys as well which the system failed to confine or eradicate leading to the weak being oppressed and victimised .

It very much so has bearing.Nobody was looking to superman as some great moral figure for guidance as he is a criminal . An authority is meant to dictate. A moral authority dictates morality itself for society . Zorro, superman, robin hood.. Etc didn't define morality structure that classifies good and bad for people to live by. Their actions themselves can be called into question as to whether they are moral or not since they use fear tactics .Legal authority and moral authority can be interconnected. A moral authority requires implicit trust which leaves you in a vulnerable position to be taken advantage of.
Moral authority :-trustworthiness to make decisions that are right and good
An outlaw would never have that.Modern superman would, he is celebrated as a hero. He would be implicitly trusted by everyone to make the call on what's good or bad. On the otherhand, jason would never have that. Old Superman, jason, zorro,robin hood, luffy.. Etc wouldn't be trusted. Therefore they aren't moral authorities. But, because they do what's right they are just moral figures in general. Moreover, they aren't looking for it either(trust, acceptance... Etc) . They have objectives or ideals. Superman's is to protect the weak. Jason just wants to protect children, handicapped and women. Robin hood wants wealth to be distributed more justly. Zorro wants to protect working class. Luffy wants freedom on the high seas. Superman wouldn't give a damn what anyone thought of him as long as he knew what he was doing is right and his conscience was clear.

Going by this definition, there is almost literally no mainstream version of Superman that would fit the definition of a moral authority figure, as all of them do this.

You'd have to go to Red Son or Injustice to find one that does.

On the contrary, he wants the trust and most of the time he does have it from people to make calls on what's good or bad. He even seeks it. Heck! His parents drill him to be this great moral authority figures.
"They can be a great people, Kal-El, they wish to be. They only lack the light to show the way. For this reason above all, their capacity for good, I have sent them you… my only son."
"You will give the people of Earth an ideal to strive towards. They will race behind you, they will stumble, they will fall. But in time, they will join you in the sun, Kal. In time, you will help them accomplish wonders"
See, people that trust such a figures or institution to tell them what's good or bad are in vulnerable situations. As said, it's should be an individuals choice that dictates morality . What if superman's view on certain things is not right. Then what? For instance, bible isn't kind to atheists or lgbtq community. And superman himself doesn't value people who seek power like goku or lex for example. Sure, lex is bad. But, that doesn’t mean we throw aways the goku's. In a society modelled after superman's morality. A guy like goku would be bad. When in actuality he ain't.

Those guys are just totalitarians(space stalin red son superman) and authoritarians(space hitler injustice superman) .The first Superman was simply an anarchist. He didn't seek control. As a. Matter of fact he sought freedom from control. He wasn't a knight like in donner movies or snyder movies. He was a modern day gladiator like say spartacus. The fenrir myth is something i always connect to superman. Ofcourse, moses is a given.

[JAK]

On the contrary, he wants the trust and most of the time he does have it from people to make calls on what's good or bad. He even seeks it. Heck! His parents drill him to be this great moral authority figures.
"They can be a great people, Kal-El, they wish to be. They only lack the light to show the way. For this reason above all, their capacity for good, I have sent them you… my only son."
"You will give the people of Earth an ideal to strive towards. They will race behind you, they will stumble, they will fall. But in time, they will join you in the sun, Kal. In time, you will help them accomplish wonders"
See, people that trust such a figures or institution to tell them what's good or bad are in vulnerable situations. As said, it's should be an individuals choice that dictates morality . What if superman's view on certain things is not right. Then what? For instance, bible isn't kind to atheists or lgbtq community. And superman himself doesn't value people who seek power like goku or lex for example. Sure, lex is bad. But, that doesn’t mean we throw aways the goku's. In a society modelled after superman's morality. A guy like goku would be bad. When in actuality he ain't.

The key words here are "people that trust". Trust is given. It's not generally forced. People disagree with Superman all the time. He has a commanding presence, but that's not force, that's persuasion. It quite literally *is* an individual's choice in nearly every mainstream iteration of Superman. (and honestly, the word "nearly" is only there in case I'm missing a silver age story or something)

Clark doesn't value people who seek power for it's own sake, but he also doesn't just lock those people away, either. He makes his point very strongly when they step out of line and do something criminal, but that's as far as that goes. Clark doesn't throw away the Lex's unilaterally, let alone the Goku's.

Those guys are just totalitarians(space stalin red son superman) and authoritarians(space hitler injustice superman) .The first Superman was simply an anarchist. He didn't seek control. As a. Matter of fact he sought freedom from control. He wasn't a knight like in donner movies or snyder movies. He was a modern day gladiator like say spartacus. The fenrir myth is something i always connect to superman. Ofcourse, moses is a given.

He wasn't an anarchist. If he were an anarchist, he'd have gone to the jail and sprung the falsely accused man in issue #1. Instead, he woke up a public official with the power to correct the situation within the system. That kinda flies against the anarchist theory.

[manwhohaseverything]

The key words here are "people that trust". Trust is given. It's not generally forced. People disagree with Superman all the time. He has a commanding presence, but that's not force, that's persuasion. It quite literally *is* an individual's choice in nearly every mainstream iteration of Superman. (and honestly, the word "nearly" is only there in case I'm missing a silver age story or something)

Clark doesn't value people who seek power for it's own sake, but he also doesn't just lock those people away, either. He makes his point very strongly when they step out of line and do something criminal, but that's as far as that goes. Clark doesn't throw away the Lex's unilaterally, let alone the Goku's.



He wasn't an anarchist. If he were an anarchist, he'd have gone to the jail and sprung the falsely accused man in issue #1. Instead, he woke up a public official with the power to correct the situation within the system. That kinda flies against the anarchist theory.

Actually, it's not clark the problem. Very much like christ isn't much of a problem. It's dogma and inflexibility to accommodate other frameworks or world views that usually comes from the blind followers of such figures. Moreover, clark isn't making them self-reliant. He is making people dependent. Moral Dependence that more often than not generate dogmatism as mentioned before.

Sure,but a society modelled after Clark's morality could easily take it too far. That has precedence in real world. Moreover, even if they don't. They would only tolerate goku's or for that matter lex's of this world. They would only seldom actually accept such figures. A tolerant society will not be able to actually understand another view like goku's. Only an accepting society can understand it. The society would still be a bit rigid in value system and lose out on many great things outside their purview.

That depends on praxis of the individual . What was Clark's objective? To ensure the person is proven innocent and can live a happy life in society. For that, he needs the judge's approval so he takes it. Otherwise, he wouldn't have bothered. he did just that as you said in many later issues. He even rescued lois from execution. He took hitler and stalin to summit because that's what needed for accomplishing the objective

As you can see he didn't exactly go through the proper channel here. Its not needed here. Billy batson on the other hand did always go through proper channels and then when it was exhausted he would have donned the cape.

[stargazer01]

Simple poll.

Do you want Jon to survive the post-Bendis era or whatever relaunch/reboot that takes place next year? And when I say survive, I mean either you want the character to continue (either as a teenager or pre-teen) or you want him erased/killed/limbo'd...whatever.

Yes. I think the son of Superman is here to stay, but write him better. Erasing him is cowardice, IMO. It would show incompetence.. I think Superman deserves his family too, but they need to do a better job writing the stories.